Validation of a print verification system

ABSTRACT

Methods, systems, and media are disclosed for testing the accuracy of a print verification system (PVS) in test mode, wherein a PVS is often used to validate the accuracy of printed output. One embodiment includes receiving, by an application, an output from a print verification system associated with the application, wherein the output comprises one or more defects. The embodiment also includes receiving, by the application, a list, such as a copy, of seeded defects for the output, wherein the list is uploaded to and saved by the application. In addition, the embodiment includes matching, by the application, the one or more seeded defects in the list that correspond to the one or more defects in the output. Finally, the embodiment includes displaying, by the application, results of the testing after the matching.

FIELD OF INVENTION

The invention generally relates to print verification systems, and, inparticular, to methods, systems, and media for testing printverification systems for accuracy.

BACKGROUND

Printer output, such as text on paper, normally occurs when a computersends a digital file to a printing device, such as a printer, copier,facsimile, or the like. This digital file often contains informationassociated with and necessary for the printing device to print theoutput. Examples of this information include the number of copies, thetype of paper to be used, the orientation for printing the output, andso forth. In order for the printing device to glean this information,and, therefore, correctly print the output, a processor associated withthe printing device reads the received digital file.

Sometimes, however, after the printing device receives the digital file,the printing device fails to print the output in exact accordance withthe digital file's instructions. As a result, printing errors occur inthe output. For example, in the black-and-white context, the printingdevice may print black on the output where white should be, that is,“unintended black,” and/or the printing device may not print black onthe output where black should be, that is, “missing black.” Additionalexamples of undesirable defects on the output include spots, lines,streaks, bleeding, haloing, tenting, trail-edge deletion and starvation.Regardless of the type of defect on the output, businesses eitherselling printing devices or heavily relying on the accuracy of printingdevices may desire to validate the output accuracy of such printingdevices.

Printing verification systems (PVSs), such as that offered by IBM, existto validate the accuracy of printing devices. In short, a PVS is aprinting inspection device which can inspect the whole surface of aprinted matter in detail at high speed. More specifically, a typical PVSincludes an associated high speed printer that prints about 300sheets/minute, and the output from this printer is on a continuous formsent through an associated duplex scanner, i.e., two cameras, whereineach one scans an image of the opposing sides of the output. PVS thencompares the scanned images to the printed images of the output, anddetermines whether the scanned images are the same as the printed imagesof the output. If the printing device under test by PVS is workingproperly, then the scanned images are the same as the printed images ofthe output. However, if differences exist, such as “unintended black” or“missing black” is found by the PVS analyzer module of PVS, then PVSwill report that the printing device is producing defects in the output.Such defects will be reported on a display, such as on a graphical userinterface (GUI), associated with PVS.

Despite the existence of PVS's to test for defects in a printingdevice's output, problems remain in determining whether printing devicesare indeed working properly. If a PVS is malfunctioning, and, thereby,fails to report defects for a printing device when defects indeed exist,then the PVS is not serving its intended function. Reliance, therefore,by the industry on a malfunctioning PVS is entirely possible, which canlead to catastrophic and unpredictable consequences for businesses thatheavily rely on the accuracy of its printing devices that they believe,albeit wrongly, are working properly. Unfortunately, no known measures,much less rapid, automated measures, exist for determining whether a PVSis analyzing a printing device's output properly.

A need, therefore, exists for automated methods, systems, and media fortesting the accuracy of a PVS.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Embodiments of the invention generally provide methods, systems, andmedia for testing the accuracy of a print verification system. In oneembodiment, the method for testing the accuracy of a print verificationsystem generally includes receiving, by an application, an output from aprint verification system associated with the application, wherein theoutput comprises one or more defects. The method also includesreceiving, by the application, a list, such as a copy, of seeded defectsfor the output, wherein the list is uploaded to and saved by theapplication. In addition, the method includes matching, by theapplication, the one or more seeded defects in the list that correspondto the one or more defects in the output. Finally, the method includesdisplaying, by the application, results of the testing after thematching.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a system for testing theaccuracy of a print verification system. The system generally includes areceiver module for receiving, by an application, an output from a printverification system associated with the application, wherein the outputcomprises one or more defects. The system also includes the receivermodule receiving, by the application, a list, such as a copy, of seededdefects for the output, wherein the list is uploaded to and saved by theapplication. In addition, the system includes a matching module formatching, by the application, the one or more seeded defects in the listthat correspond to the one or more defects in the output. Finally, thesystem includes a display module for displaying, by the application,results of the testing after execution by the matching. Module.

In yet another embodiment, the invention provides a machine-accessiblemedium containing instructions for testing the accuracy of a printverification system, which when executed by a machine, cause the machineto perform operations. The instructions generally include operations forreceiving, by an application, an output from a print verification systemassociated with the application, wherein the output comprises one ormore defects. The instructions further include operations for receiving,by the application, a list, such as a copy, of seeded defects for theoutput, wherein the list is uploaded to and saved by the application.Further still, the instructions include operations for matching, by theapplication, the one or more seeded defects in the list that correspondto the one or more defects in the output. Finally, the instructionsfurther include operations for includes displaying, by the application,results of the testing after performing the instructions for matching.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

So that the manner in which the above recited features, advantages andobjects of the present invention are attained and can be understood indetail, a more particular description of the invention, brieflysummarized above, may be had by reference to the embodiments thereofwhich are illustrated in the appended drawings.

It is to be noted, however, that the appended drawings illustrate onlytypical embodiments of this invention and are therefore not to beconsidered limiting of its scope, for the invention may admit to otherequally effective embodiments.

FIG. 1 depicts an example embodiment of an overview of a printverification system (PVS) and application used in accordance with thedisclosed invention.

FIG. 2 depicts an example embodiment of a system for testing theaccuracy of a PVS in accordance with the disclosed invention.

FIG. 3 depicts an example embodiment of a flowchart for testing theaccuracy of a PVS in accordance with the disclosed invention

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

The following is a detailed description of example embodiments of theinvention depicted in the accompanying drawings. The embodiments areexamples and are in such detail as to clearly communicate the invention.However, the amount of detail offered is not intended to limit theanticipated variations of embodiments; on the contrary, the intention isto cover all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling withinthe spirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appendedclaims. The detailed descriptions below are designed to make suchembodiments obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

Generally speaking, systems, methods, and media for testing the accuracyof a print verification system (PVS) are contemplated. Embodimentsinclude a PVS, which, generally, is understood to include a printingdevice, such as a printer, for receiving a digital file from a computersystem either associated or integrated into the PVS for operation ineither a test or a verify mode. The printing device processes thedigital file by reading the packets of information in the digital file,which, for example, contains a first page and a second page, wherein thesecond page is the same as the first page except for the inclusion ofseeded defects known to someone associated with the testing of the PVS.The printer prints the interpreted digital file as printer output, suchas text on paper, and an associated scanner scans the printer output asan image, such as in bitmap format. With reference to the first andsecond pages just discussed, logic associated with the PVS analyzer ofthe PVS compares the first page of the printer output to a scannedversion of the second page. In addition and optionally, the logic alsohas the PVS analyzer compare the second page of the printer output to ascanned version of the first page. Afterwards, the PVS produces thecomparison's output on an associated display, such as a computer screenshowing a graphical user interface for logging or listing the testresults by the PVS. If the PVS is working properly, the comparison'soutput, or simply, “PVS output,” should report any detected differences,i.e., seeded defects such as missing or unintended black ink, that trulyexist between a comparison of the first and second pages.

This disclosure, however, relates to systems, methods, and media fortesting the accuracy of a PVS in its test mode. That is, this disclosurevalidates that the PVS, in test mode, is testing properly by anapplication associated or integrated into the PVS. The application, alsoreferred to as the PVS tester application in this disclosure, generallyanalyzes the PVS output from the PVS to determine whether the PVS intest mode is working properly. More specifically, the applicationsanalyzes the PVS output to determine whether the PVS output reported allof the seeded defects that the PVS should have found by testing thefirst and second pages. If the application reports PVS found all of thedefects that PVS was expected to find, then the PVS is working properly.Otherwise, PVS may not be working properly, and repair of the PVS may benecessary.

Turning now to FIG. 1, a general overview of a system 100 for testingthe accuracy of a print verification system (PVS) 105, in accordancewith the invention, is disclosed. The system 100 includes a printingdevice 110, likely used by testers of a PVS 105, wherein the printingdevice 110 receives a digital file 107 which, for example, contains afirst page and a second page, wherein the second page is the same as thefirst page except for the inclusion of seeded defects known to someoneassociated with the testing of the PVS 105. The printing device 110,such as a printer, facsimile, and so forth, prints the interpreteddigital file 107 as printer output 127, such as text on paper. Inaddition, an associated scanner 120 scans the printer output 127 as ascanned image 126, such as in bitmap format. The scanner 120, itself,may be a duplex scanner having two cameras, wherein one is on top andone is on the bottom, for producing a scanned image 126 of the printeroutput 127. Here, a duplex scanner may simultaneously scan both sides ofa two-sided printer output 127, and, thereby, produce a scanned image ofthe first page and the second page in one pass pf the scanner 120.

The PVS analyzer 125, through associated logic, compares a scanned image126 of the first page to the printer output 127 of the second page. Inaddition and optionally, the PVS analyzer 125 also compares a scannedimage 126 of the second page to the printer output 127 of the firstpage. Ideally, analysis of the first and optional second comparisonsshould yield results, which are termed “PVS output” in this disclosure,that show differences, i.e., seeded defects, gleaned by comparing thefirst and second pages. Notably, the first and optional comparisons ofthe first and second pages should produce the same, but reflective,defects. For example, say the PVS output 128 for the PVS analyzer's 125comparison and analysis of a scanned image 126 of the first page to theprinter output 127 of the second page is only unintended black seededdefects. Then, comparison and analysis of a scanned image 126 of thesecond page to the printer output 127 of the first page should bemissing black seeded defects. By this example, it follows that the PVSoutput 128 reports the same defects, but are reflective relative to thepage's side, i.e., first or second.

Associated with the PVS 105 is a PVS tester application 130, or simply,“application” 130, which by enabling logic reduced to code and/orhardware, obtains the PVS output 128 for further analysis. Theapplication 130, itself, is either loaded on the computer systemassociated with the PVS 105 or integrated into the computer systemassociated with the PVS 105. The application 130 has an uploaded seededdefects list 131, which contains a list of the seeded defects, such asunintended black or missing black, which were placed on theabove-discussed digital file's 107 second page. More specifically, theseeded defects list 131 is, for example, a list of seeded defects havingknown variables, such as type of defect, page number on which each typeof defect is placed, the distances along and across the page on whichthe type of defect is placed, and the size of the type of defect.

The application 130, again, through enabling logic reduced to codeand/or hardware, compares the PVS output 128 to the seeded defects list131 to analyze whether the PVS analyzer 125 reported all of the seededdefects that the PVS analyzer 125 should have found if the PVS 105 isworking properly. After this analysis by the application 130, theapplication 130 reports the results 140 for testing the accuracy of thePVS 105 on a display 135 either associated with the PVS 105, or, in thealternative, on a separate, non-depicted display solely associated withthe application 130.

Now, moving to FIG. 2, a more detailed discussion of a system 200 fortesting a print verification system (PVS) ensues. In particular, thediscussion regarding system 200 depicted in FIG. 2 focuses on theapplication 205 that compares and analyzes the PVS output 229 from a PVS210 in order to test the accuracy of the PVS 210.

As previously discussed and shown in FIG. 1, FIG. 2 also depicts a PVS210, but components of the PVS 210 are not depicted in FIG. 1. Referenceto FIG. 1 is appropriate, if necessary, to revisit the components of thePVS 210 in the following discussion of the application 205 depicted inFIG. 2. In addition, it is noteworthy to repeat that the application205, itself, is located on a computer system associated with the PVS 210or, in the alternative, is integrated into the computer systemassociated with the PVS 210.

The document under test by system 200 is the PVS output 229, which isbased on a comparison and analysis of a document, for example, havingthe first and second pages previously discussed with reference to FIG.1, wherein the second page is the same as the first page, but the secondpage also includes seeded defects. The defects 220, if any, reported inthe PVS output are then analyzed by the application 205 to ensure thatthe PVS 210 is working properly.

To determine this query, enabling logic associated with theapplication's 205 receiver module 220 receives the PVS output 229through communication, such as over a network, with the PVS 210. As justdisclosed again, the PVS output 229 contains the results the PVSanalyzer's comparing and analyzing for defects of, for example, a firstpage and a second page of a document under test by the PVS 210, whereinthe second page differs from the first page only in that the second pagealso contains seeded defects. With the PVS output 229 received by thereceiver module 225, further enabling logic, whether reduced to codeand/or hardware, is associated with the receiver module 225, or, in thealternative, a separate module in communication with the receiver module225, which allows for the uploading and saving of a seeded defects 217list.

Before turning to more of the application's 205 functionality describedin example embodiments by modules, it is worthwhile to expound on theseeded defect list 217. The seeded defects list 217 are the seededdefects placed, for example, on the above-discussed second page beforethe digital file including this second page is interpreted by theprinter and scanner of the PVS 210. The seeded defects are defectshaving known variables to a tester, for instance. The seeded defect list217, that is, a file or script, for example, contains various fields foreach defect placed on a page, such as the above-discussed second page.One field is the type of defect, such as “missing black” or “unintendedblack” ink that is placed on one page but not on another page that isidentical except for this defect. Of course, there any many differenttypes of seeded defects possible for placing on a page and for ultimateanalysis by the PVS analyzer and application 205, and, to that end, itis understood that “missing black” or “unintended black” ink are justexamples of seeded defect types. Another field is the page number onwhich the seeded defect occurs. Two additional fields for seeded defectsinclude the distance across the page where the seeded defect is located,and the distance along the page where the seeded defect is located. Afinal example field of a known variable for the seeded defects is thesize, i.e., such as in pixels, of the seeded defect. Less or more, aswell as different, fields for the seeded defects on the seeded defectlist 217, are entirely possible and likely without departing from thescope of the invention. The above-fields are illustrative only, but theyare also entirely adequate for enabling the application 205 to performas intended.

Returning to the application's 205 functionality discussion, which ispresented for explanation in modular format to ensure thefunctionalities of the application 205 are specifically addressed anddisclosed, the receiver module 220, through enabling logic, communicateswith the matching module 233 to attempt matching of the PVS output 229to the seeded defects list 217. More specifically, the matching module233 attempts to match by comparing and analyzing the PVS output's 229reported defects to the seeded defects known by reference to the seededdefects list 217. Afterwards, and by further similarly enabling logic,the matching module 233 reports its matching analysis of the PVS output229 with reference to the seeded defects list 217, where the matchinganalysis, for example, is in the form of one or more defects lists 239for display, such as on a GUI on a computer screen, via a display module240.

Through enabling logic associated with the matching module 233, anassociated retrieval module 234 retrieves the PVS output 229, whichincludes defects found by PVS 210 for the document under test, from thereceiver module 220. In addition, the retrieval module 234 alsoretrieves a copy 239 of the seeded defects list 217 from the receivermodule 215. Before resorting to matching, another modular component ofthe matching module 233, namely the removal module 220, first engages ina whittling away process of seeded defects that could not be matches forany of the defects found by PVS 210 and reported in the PVS output 229.

The removal module 235 first removes seeded defects from the receivedcopy 239 of the seeded defects list 217 for seeded defects that appearon pages of the document under test as determined by reference of whichpages exist in the PVS output 229. At this juncture, it is prudent totake a brief departure from discussion of the removal module 235, anddiscuss the iteration module 250 of the application 205. For a documentunder test by PVS 210, typically, the associated high speed printer,which may print at 300 sheets/minute, does not scan each and every pageof the document under test; that is, only part of the document isscanned as an image, wherein that part may be less than a page ormultiple pages in length. The document, normally being a multi-pagedocument, must be copied at least six or seven times at a minimum inorder for PVS to eventually scan all parts of the document under test;that is, at a minimum, six or seven copies of the document under testare normally necessary, but not a hard-fast rule, in order for a randomsampling to result in all parts of the document under test to bescanned; maybe sixty or seventy copies may be necessary to have PVS scanevery page of a large document. As a result, the application 205optionally includes an iteration module 250, which is enabled with logicto allow the matching module 230 to repeat its functional analyses foradditional pages, with and without seeded defects, analyzed by the PVSanalyzer, and yielded as PVS output 229, which is further analyzed bythe application 205 as discussed herein.

Returning now to the removal module 235, and after seeded defects fromthe copy 238 of the seeded defects list 217 are removed that were notpart of defects in the PVS output, the removal module 235 proceeds inits analysis. The removal module 235 removes seeded defects from thecopy 238 of the seeded defect list 217 for any seeded defects that donot appear on part, e.g., a page, of the PVS output 229 when such seededdefect(s) should. The removal module 235 passes these “undetected seededdefects” to an associated display module 240, which has enabling logicto report these “undetected seeded defects,” for example, as a list 239on a GUI on a display associated solely with the application 205 or, inthe alternative, on a display associated with PVS 210 as depicted inFIG. 1.

The removal module 235 then proceeds to further analyze the copy 238 andthe PVS output's 229 defects. The removal module 235 determines whetherthe PVS output's 229 defects are on a page number that is greater thanthe highest numbered page having a seeded defect. If yes, then these oneor more defects in the PVS output 229 are passed as “unexpected defects”to an associated display module 240, in the same manner, as justdiscussed, for display as a list 239 or otherwise.

Next, the removal module 235, in combination with the matching module233, attempts to match the remaining seeded defects in the copy 238 ofthe seeded defects list to the defects 229 of the PVS output through theknown variables associated with the seeded defects and the defects. Thatis, for example, the matching occurs by page, type, and location of thedefects as compared to seeded defects, wherein the defects are reportedto the receiver module 220 with the known variables of page, type, andlocation before being ultimately passed to the removal module 235. Toassist in this matching, the configuration module 237 is a component ofthe matching module 230 that affects matching determinations by theapplication 205. The configuration module 237 includes enabling logic toallow the tester, administrator, operator, or whomever else havingaccess rights, to set thresholds used for matching seeded defects todefects in the PVS output 229. One example threshold for settingincludes the distance any of the defects are from a particular seededdefect in order for the one of the defects to be considered a match tothe particular seeded defect in the copy 238. For each match of a seededdefect in the copy 238 to a defect in the PVS output 229, the matchedseeded defect is removed from the copy 238 of the seeded defects list217. For those remaining defects that do not match any of the seededdefects remaining in the copy 238 of the seeded defects 217, then these“unexpected defects” are passed to the display module 240 for display aspreviously discussed.

Finally, for each remaining seeded defects in the copy 238 of the seededdefects list 217, the removal module 230 receives the PVS 210 minimumdetectable size setting, from, for instance, communicating with theconfiguration module 237, which has the minimum detectable size settingthreshold denoted for PVS 210 during the determination of the defects byPVS 210. As an alternative, the removal module 230 may have enablinglogic to receive, directly from PVS 210, the minimum detectable sizesetting threshold used during the determination of the defects by PVS210. Regardless how the removal module 235 receives the PVS 210 minimumdetectable size setting, which is often a variable setting based onpixel size, the removal module 235 removes seeded defects from the copy238 of the seeded defects list 217 for any seeded defects not foundbecause such seeded defects were smaller than the minimum detectablesize. The removal module 235 then passes such too small seeded defectsto the display module 240, for display, as previously described, to be“seeded defects too small for detection.” Thereafter, the removal module235 passes all other seeded defects remaining in the copy 238 of theseeded defects list 217 to the display module 240, for display, as“seeded defects not found.” At this point, the automated system 200 fortesting whether PVS is working properly can now be determined by simplylooking at the display. In sum, if PVS is working perfectly correctly,then the copy 238 of the seeded defects list 217 will equal zero, and,any deviations from zero will be displayed on a GUI, log, or similarreport, such as a lit 239, on a display associated with the application205.

Turning now to FIG. 3, another aspect of the invention is disclosed. Inparticular, an embodiment of a flowchart 300 for testing the accuracy ofa print verification system (PVS). Flowchart 300 is for a system, suchas systems 100 and 200, as shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2. In general, theflowchart 300 depicts example embodiments of automated methods fortesting the accuracy of PVS.

Flowchart 300 begins by an application, which is associated with orintegrated into a PVS, having enabling logic to provide the applicationwith the capability to receive 305 defects in PVS output after analysisby the PVS of a document under test, e.g., a first page and a secondpage, wherein the second page differs from the first only in that thesecond page also includes seeded defects. After the application receives305 the PVS output, further enabling logic, found in code and/orhardware and associated with the application, receives 310 a seededdefects list, which is likely a master list or an updateable list thatcontains all the seeded defects placed in the seeded defect part, e.g.,above-described second page, of the document under test. These seededdefects, themselves, come from a previously uploaded file, such as alist, to the application.

The flowchart 300 continues by the application receiving 325 a copy ofthe seeded defects list from the application. After the application'slogic receives the defects in the PVS output by calling, for example,within the application, further logic associated with the applicationenables comparing 330, which is aimed at matching 370, these defects toa copy of a list of the seeded defects associated with the application.Before delving into wholesale comparing 330 of the defects to the copyof the list of seeded defects, the application has enabling logic tobeing whittling away, that is, elimination 335 of matching possibilitiesfor defects to those existing in a copy of the seeded defect list.Elimination 335 of matching possibilities, depicted as a decision blockin FIG. 3, enables quicker processing of ultimate attempts to matchdefects to the copy of the seeded defects, and, this is especially trueas any or all of the following increase: the number of defects, numberof seeded defects, and size of the scanned images under comparison. Ifthe decision is “yes,” that is, to try and eliminate 335 matchingpossibilities, then the application's elimination logic presents asystematic approach to reduce seeded defects from the copy of the seededdefects list that could not possibly match any of the defects in the PVSoutput, as well as to quickly categorize defects that could not possiblymatch any of the seeded defects. At the end of this eliminationanalysis, matching 355 by the application occurs from a subset of theremaining seeded defects on the copy of the seeded defects list and asubset of the defects, and, automated matching 355 attempts betweenthese subsets reduces the processor time and usage needed to attemptmatching 355 any of the remaining defects in the two subsets.

The application's associated and enabling logic first removes 340 seededdefects from the copy of the seeded defects list for seeded defects thatare not on parts of the document not included in the parts of thedocument tested for defects. With the copy of the seeded defects listnow likely reduced, the application's logic now removes seeded defectsfrom the copy of the seeded defects list for parts, such as a page, onwhich no defect was found. That is, if no defect was found on a part ofthe document under test as known by looking at the PVS output, and oneor more seeded defects were indeed placed on that part of the image,then, these seeded defects are removed from the copy of the list ofseeded defects. Through further associated logic, the application sends347 these “undetected seeded defects” for displaying 370 on a display,such as a GUI, list, or log, appearing, for example, on a computerscreen or monitor associated solely with the application, or, in thealternative, with the application and the PVS.

Already with the possible elimination of some seeded defects from a copyof the list of seeded defects, attempts at matching 355 the remainingdefects and seeded defects is easier. However, further elimination logicassociated with the application next determines whether any of thedefects appear on pages numbers that are greater than the highest pagenumber having a seeded defect. If yes, then the application's logicremoves these defects from the possibility for later matching 355 bysending 352 these “unexpected defects” for displaying 370, as previouslydiscussed.

The flowchart 300 continues now by attempting to match 355 the defectsand seeded defects in the copy of the seeded defects that remain. Sincethe defects and the copy of the seeded defects list have fields of knownvariables such as page, type, location, as well as size of seededdefect, wherein some of these known variables were used in theabove-discussed elimination analysis, attempts at matching 355 may occurbased on these known variables. Prior to matching 355, however, theapplication is optionally configured 360 to set threshold limits formatching 355. By configuring 360, the tester, or other proper authority,sets thresholds for what the application will determine is an acceptablematch between a particular seeded defect on the list and a particulardefect. For instance, one threshold setting is the acceptable distancebetween a particular defect and a particular seeded defect in order forthere to be a match by the application. Logic associated with theapplication sends the seeded defects that match defects for displaying370, as previously discussed, and, for example, such may appear as alist of “matching seeded defects.” In addition, for the remainingunmatched defects, the application's logic also sends these “unmatcheddefects” for displaying 370, as previously discussed.

Moving towards culmination of the flowchart 300, and after attempting tomatch 355, the seeded defects remaining in the copy of the seededdefects list are analyzed 365 by the application. The application'slogic, in optional example embodiments, directly communicates with PVSor retrieves from the application's configuration threshold settings thePVS minimum detectible size for defects. For instance, if the minimumdetectable size for PVS to detect a defect is 8×8 pixels, then if any ofthe remaining seeded defects appearing in the copy of seeded defectslist is less than 8×8 pixels in size, then these seeded defects areremoved from the copy of the seeded defects list, and associated logicin the application sends such “seeded defects too small for detection”for displaying 370. For any seeded defects now remaining on the copy ofthe seeded defects list, then enabling logic in the application nowsends these remaining seeded defects, if any, for displaying 370 as“seeded defects not found.”

The flowchart 300 ends by querying with a repeat 375 decision block, aquery directed at ensuring all parts of the document are analyzed by theapplication. As previously mentioned, typically, PVS only scans one inseven parts of the document under test, and, therefore, multipleiterations of the automated method depicted by the flowchart 300 arenecessary to ensure that all parts of the document for testing areanalyzed by the PVS, and, ultimately by the application.

Another embodiment of the invention is implemented as a program productfor use with a computer system such as, for example, the systems 100 and200 shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2. The program(s) of the program productdefines functions of the embodiments (including the methods describedherein) and can be contained on a variety of signal-bearing media.Illustrative signal-bearing media include, but are not limited to: (i)information permanently stored on non-writable storage media (e.g.,read-only memory devices within a computer such as CD-ROM disks readableby a CD-ROM drive); (ii) alterable information stored on writablestorage media (e.g., floppy disks within a diskette drive or hard-diskdrive); and (iii) information conveyed to a computer by a communicationsmedium, such as through a computer or telephone network, includingwireless communications. The latter embodiment specifically includesinformation downloaded from the Internet and other networks. Suchsignal-bearing media, when carrying computer-readable instructions thatdirect the functions of the present invention, represent embodiments ofthe present invention.

In general, the routines executed to implement the embodiments of theinvention, may be part of an operating system or a specific application,component, program, module, object, or sequence of instructions. Thecomputer program of the present invention typically is comprised of amultitude of instructions that will be translated by the native computerinto a machine-readable format and hence executable instructions. Also,programs are comprised of variables and data structures that eitherreside locally to the program or are found in memory or on storagedevices. In addition, various programs described hereinafter may beidentified based upon the application for which they are implemented ina specific embodiment of the invention. However, it should beappreciated that any particular program nomenclature that follows isused merely for convenience, and thus the invention should not belimited to use solely in any specific application identified and/orimplied by such nomenclature.

While the foregoing is directed to example embodiments of the disclosedinvention, other and further embodiments of the invention may be devisedwithout departing from the basic scope thereof, and the scope thereof isdetermined by the claims that follow.

1. A method for testing accuracy of a print verification system, themethod comprising: receiving, by an application, an output from a printverification system associated with the application, wherein the outputcomprises one or more defects; receiving, by the application, a list ofseeded defects for the output; matching, by the application, the one ormore seeded defects in the list that correspond to the one or moredefects in the output; and displaying, by the application, results ofthe testing after the matching.
 2. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising placing, before the receiving the output from the printverification system, at least a subset of the seeded defects in the listinto at least part of a document forming the basis of the testing by theprint verification system and the application.
 3. The method of claim 1,further comprising repeating the testing to ensure the testing of everypart of the document.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the matchingcomprises matching based on comparison of known variables for the seededdefects in the list and the defects in the output.
 5. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the matching comprises: removing, by the application,the seeded defects from the list based on comparison of known variablesfor the seeded defects in the list and the defects in the output,wherein the known variables exclude any possible correspondence betweenany of the seeded defects and any of the defects; whereby, after theremoving, matching any of the seeded defects remaining in the list thatcorrespond to the defects in the defects list.
 6. The method of claim 5,further comprising making, by the application, a copy of the list beforethe removing and used in the matching as a working list of the seededdefects.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the matching comprisesmatching any of the seeded defects in the list to any of the defects inthe output based on at least one threshold setting.
 8. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the displaying comprises displaying the results in theform of one or more lists.
 9. A system for testing accuracy of a printverification system, the system comprising: a receiver module forreceiving, by an application, an output from a print verification systemin communication with the application, wherein the output comprises oneor more defects, the receiver module of the application for receiving alist of seeded defects for the output; a matching module, associatedwith the receiver module, for matching the one or more seeded defects inthe list that correspond to the one or more defects in the output; and adisplay module, associated with the application, for displaying resultsof the testing after execution by the matching module.
 10. The system ofclaim 9, further comprising an iteration module for repeating thetesting to ensure the testing of every part of the document.
 11. Thesystem of claim 9, wherein the matching module comprises matching basedon known variables for the defects in the output and the seeded defectsin the list.
 12. The system of claim 9, wherein the matching modulecomprises: a removal module for removing the seeded defects from thelist based on comparison of known variables for the seeded defects inthe list and the defects in the output, wherein the known variablesexclude any possible correspondence between any of the seeded defectsand any of the defects; whereby, after the removing by the removalmodule, the matching module matching any of the seeded defects remainingin the list that correspond to the defects in the defects list.
 13. Thesystem of claim 12, wherein the matching module comprises a retrievalmodule for retrieving a copy of the list of the seeded defects for useby the matching module and removal module.
 14. The system of claim 9,wherein the matching module comprises a configuration module forconfiguring threshold settings used by the matching module for matchingany of the seeded defects in the list to any of the defects in theoutput.
 15. The system of claim 9, wherein the display module comprisesdisplaying the results in the form of one or more lists on a displayassociated with the application.
 16. A machine-accessible mediumcontaining instructions, which when executed by a machine, cause themachine to perform operations for testing accuracy of a printverification system, comprising: receiving, by an application, an outputfrom a print verification system associated with the application,wherein the output comprises one or more defects; receiving, by theapplication, a list of seeded defects for the output; matching, by theapplication, the one or more seeded defects in the list that correspondto the one or more defects in the output; and displaying, by theapplication, results of the testing after the matching.
 17. Themachine-accessible medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions furthercomprise operations for repeating the testing to ensure the testing ofevery part of the document.
 18. The machine-accessible medium of claim16, wherein the instructions for matching comprise instructions forperforming operations for matching based on comparison of knownvariables for the seeded defects in the list and the defects in theoutput.
 19. The machine-accessible medium of claim 16, wherein theinstructions wherein the matching comprises instructions for performingoperations, comprising: removing, by the application, the seeded defectsfrom the list based on comparison of known variables for the seededdefects in the list and the defects in the output, wherein the knownvariables exclude any possible correspondence between any of the seededdefects and any of the defects; whereby, after performing theinstructions for removing, the instructions are performed for matchingany of the seeded defects remaining in the list that correspond to thedefects in the defects list.
 20. The machine-accessible medium of claim16, wherein the instructions for matching comprise instructions forperforming operations for matching any of the seeded defects in the listto any of the defects based on at least one threshold setting.